摘要
此文是对本刊1986年第二期发表的《许渊冲教授“音美”理论与实践质疑》一文的答辩。文章一方面从理论上对《质疑》中提出的问题进行了回答,阐述了译诗的“三美”理论:“意美”、“音美”、“形美”;另一方面就《质疑》中提到的译例进行了磋商。最后指出“意似”是译诗的低标准,“意美”是高标准,“三美”是最高标准。“意似”只能使读者“知之”,“意美”却能使读者“好之”,“三美”才能使读者“乐之”。
This is a reply to the article'A Query on the'Prosodic Beauty' Theory & Practice or Prof. Xu Yuanchong' carried on the seeond issue 1986 of Journal of Shenzhen University.The essay answers the Query's queries theoretically to expound the'Triple Beauty' theory in poetic translation while, on the other hand, refutes the examples put forth by the Query. As a conclusion, the author points out that'message similarity' is the low standard for poetic tsanslation,'message beauty' the high standard, and'triple beauty' the highest standard.'Message similaritty' makes the reader'understand it','message beauty makes the reader'like it'; whereas only'triple beauty'can make the reader'fascinated by it'.
出处
《深圳大学学报（人文社会科学版）》
1987年第2期70-77,共8页
Journal of Shenzhen University：Humanities & Social Sciences
